The attitude towards pornography here is immediately dismissive and negative. By far the biggest movement in porn since the internet is 'amateur'. Unrecognized here as direct reflection of human sexuality, movement away from fantasy to authenticity.
I think the point of the article is that all media is entertainment, and journalism has lost it's informant pretense. A legit point, I don't care for porn bashing though.
Agreed. The article is definitely an oversimplification. Sure, anything with informational or entertainment value can be optimised, so to speak. Fast food optimises for taste at the expense of balanced nutrition, and so on. But just because a thing can be optimised does not mean it’s not also subtle and nuanced. Besides, pornography does not work well in the analogy: the variety in human sexual tastes reduces its vulnerability to optimisation.
The fact that there is a significant movement toward legitimacy and depth in pornography is a testament to that fact. And I have considerable respect for sites that encourage amateur content, in the (perhaps naive) hope that it will encourage more realistic expectations among the sexually inexperienced.
I see this attitude so often on the Internet: where porn is practically sacrosanct. It's way more complicated than that, and it seems intellectually dishonest to oversimplify matters.
However, the real point I'd like to make is this: you are right when you mention that the author was actually discussing the perils of everything being entertaining. He'd do well to read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death. It is downright chilling to read when you realize it was written in the eighties as the cultural impact of pervasive television was beginning to become apparent.
By far the biggest movement in porn since the internet is 'amateur'.
That's because the internet has stripped profits away. It's like reality shows being the trend in television because expensive productions don't have as much profit margin as they used to.
The only thing I'd add is that as we become more saturated in stimulation, it takes more extremes to get the dopamine hit. This goes for porn or anything else he mentions in his article.
I wouldn't say it's dismissive and negative to point out that porn is inherently reductionist. The main difference is that things like nutrition, music, and intellectual enrichment need a degree of sophistication. Porn is just a method for physiological release, not a proper art form.
I think we can all agree that erotica is a proper art form. It's nudes in tasteful poses, usually with artistic intent. Hell, one could argue that most art produced in the renaissance was erotica. Or the Statue of David for instance.
Ok so that's art.
Similarly, we all consider most types of drawings to be art. People drawing on canvas to produce emotionally and visually stimulating stuff has always been art.
Then take Pollock for instance. He is the complete bastardization of visual art. Pure colour and emotion with wanton disregard for any "form".
That is still considered art.
However, when you do the same to erotica and come up with porn ... it suddenly isn't art anymore?
I think it's mostly a matter of context. Porn is something you watch while you jerk off, and afterwards you throw it away. That's what it's designed for, and there's not much more to be seen if you watch it in any other context.
In fact, the OP is slightly off about the question of actual porn--porn is more or less the distilled version of erotica, not film, that takes away the art.
Now if you try to make porn, or make something that has the superficial appearance of porn, and then by accident or design end up creating something that's capable of greater intellectual or emotional depth, maybe that could be art. For instance, if the girl was holding the camera, it would be a subversive commentary on the male gaze. Creating art like that in the nominal form of pornography would in fact be deeply ironic simply because porn isn't art. (It wouldn't necessarily be erotica, because you've distilled the art away from the erotica to make the porn, and then added a different, ironic aspect of art on top of it.)
Art is whatever the janitor decides not to to throw in the trashcan. In other words, it have to be beautiful. It have to be something that an everyman want to buy. It does not matter what kind of meaning an artist put into a painting.
Erotica is art because it's beautiful. Sex stories, however explicit, is beautiful. Hentai are often beautiful because they are drawn by artists who care about beauty.
Porn are usually not beautiful. They have ugly characters and they are often completely forgettable.
Say what you want about modern art, as long it can make people show interest in a trash bag, it's powerful. Porn just exploits (and fools) your basic circuits, like drugs of addiction.
I assure you if I would paint something, it wouldn't be very beautiful either. Does that show that paintings are not art?
I didn't say painting aren't art. I say that beautiful things are not art. That being said, beautiful is a spectrum. So in my view, something could be art if it is slightly beautiful or done with some slight skills.
However, the ultimate test is whether or not it would be mistaken as trash.
Art absolutely, positively does not have to be 'something that an everyman wants to buy'. Art can quite happily exist with an audience of one. It also most certainly does not have to be beautiful - 'confrontational' art frequently violates this idea.
I don't think that holds true for everyone. My observation is that some people are primarily seeking emotional release, which may or may not lead to or involve "physiological release". It seems to me that emotional appeal is a large factor in much of what we call art.
Most actors/actress are ugly. I don't really care for amateur because they are often ugly too. It'll get the job done, but it's like watching a really badly done horror movie. Not scary or sexy at all.
The manga world is often in stark contrast to the reality tubes. Some of them will make you angry and some will make you fell in love with the characters. They are also often beautiful.
Even though they are high quality, they might as well be mass produced. The reality tubes is mass produced but is of bad quality.
Well, what's the benefit of porn? To be a glass where you can look but cannot touch? To compensate for some oversexuality that is not freely expressed? To turn everyone into proud voyeurs? Most animals see amateur porn among their conspecifics every day and frankly don't give a damn. I bet only masturbating animals would ever buy porn. I know the internet is generally proud of its porn, but general opinion equates porn with masturbation and thus all the negative attitude. What's so positive about porn otherwise?
Strictly evolutionarily, animals survive and evolve without porn. Porn is a reaction to our cultural practices from the past. If it weren't for porn, maybe our societies would be more open sex-wise.
Porn is a reaction to our cultural practices from the past. If it weren't for porn, maybe our societies would be more open sex-wise.
Can I ask on what do you base this? Because I see sexually liberated subcultures making and sharing their own (non-commercial) porn. http://www.freedomporn.org/ is a good example.
I remember reading about a study that showed looking at boobs raised men's self esteem. There is also a study that showed that apes (or monkeys or some animal like that) likes to pay for porn (ape/monkey porn of course).
Also the sex drive is quite important for the human species. It's a huge motivator.
Yes but out in the wild, even with monkeys watching other monkeys, sex is a social activity; watching porn alone makes it a very non-social activity.
This discussion reminds me a bit of the "sugar/fructose" discussion the other day. Humans are built to crave sugary, high-calorie food. Modern society allows for an endless supply of sugar. Cue rampant obesity.
I think it's beneficial to question everything; to completely detach oneself from the hivemind. Just because everyone watches porn (or it provides short-term positive benefits) does not mean it's innately good, or could/should be consumed in endless quantities, or has no negative implications.
For women, porn can be beneficial because it provides information.
(from "A Feminist Defense of Pornography"; can be found by Googling it; originally included the link but post became dead immediately after submitting and I think that's why.)
"
* It gives a panoramic view of the world's sexual possibilities. This is true even of basic sexual information such as masturbation. It is not uncommon for women to reach adulthood without knowing how to give themselves pleasure.
* It allows women to "safely" experience sexual alternatives and satisfy a healthy sexual curiosity. The world is a dangerous place. By contrast, pornography can be a source of solitary enlightenment.
* It offers the emotional information that comes only from experiencing something either directly or vicariously. It provides us with a sense how it would "feel" to do something. "
I cannot vote you down in my head hard enough simply because you have completely discounted the entire sexual experience of many women by relegating female sexuality to the emotive realm.
Women use and enjoy porn the same as men do - visual to physiological and to release. Period.
Porn is beneficial to women in many ways as consumers. Until people wake up to this, revenue streams and culture (of consent and equality, experience and discourse) alike will be hobbled.
Your heart is in the right place. But you're missing the rest of reality, as is this entire HN discussion.
I didn't relegate female sexuality to the emotive realm; I just listed some additional benefits of porn that I found posted in an essay targeted toward the woman's perspective. (And I then indicated that I feel the same benefits can be had by men as well.)
The post I replied to asked "Well, what's the benefit of porn?" and I felt the physiological aspects were already covered. There was no need for me to correct it to say "women like the physiological aspects, too" since I already know that to be true and didn't see anybody stating otherwise who needed to be corrected.
What I find very humorous (read: ironic) is that this comment thread (edit: ENTIRE comment thread) has been sidelined by discussion of porn, when the article actually referenced porn very little.
probably a good indication that the article is pretty spot on.
Is it just me or do I find it ironic that the article is surrounding by the things the author seems to dislike?
The twitter/facebook tie ins on the site are one thing, but the recommended content made me laugh.
>Why You Should Start Smoking
>6 Rules For Increasing Your Chances Of Getting Laid At Parties For The Chronically Alienated, Interspersed With Songs I Like Right Now, Vol. 1
> Paid Distribution What Your "Drink" Says About You on a Date
It's a great way to unintentionally strengthening the authors argument.
Seriously though, I would replace 'the porn generation' with 'the porned generation'.
"Corporations are not looking out for your best interests; they’re looking to make as much money as possible."
That's the obvious part. But the interesting part is how all this big corporations managed it to finally break into our lives. Not only the sell us all kinds off stuff we don't need. They also very actively comment our consume behavior. Something is always wrong with our lives. We are too fat, too boring, our relationships are not thrilling enough, we don't manage to get what we deserve.
Corporations are not longer selling stuff to us in the traditional way, from producer to consumer. For them, we are gigantic consumption mass, trained to buy and to be evaluated from day one.
We are not consumers, we are here to be consumed. We get porned.
In other words, online porn isn't a drug, it isn't an addiction, it isn't a sign of deviancy or a trigger for disease: porn is junk food. It is a bag of potato chips you eat when you aren't even hungry, and once you start and the initial "mmmm!" passes you're all in, may as well finish the bag, you've ruined your diet/night already, start over clean tomorrow.
After a while potato chips just figure into your routine, there's a passing thought that perhaps you shouldn't but since there aren't any obvious and immediate consequences... And now it's part of who you are.
But no one would ever say that "other foods don't measure up", no one says that potato chips taste better than steak not because they don't but because no sane person makes those kinds of comparisons. If you did, if you played it all out in your head and now deliberately avoid eating a steak in order to get to potato chips-- then you have a problem that is deeper than steak or potato chips.
Junk food is stripped of the essentials of real food, leaving just the vulgar, the simple, the obvious of taste: sugar, salt, fat, repeat. It is the pornographization of food. The mistake people make is that they think it is delicious, but it's really just easy, comforting, reliable, satisfying. And that's where we are now: online porn is the pornographization of porn.
It's funny; I started thinking about his examples and except for the TED talks (which for me complement but haven't replaced reading), the only kind of porn I'm exposed to is actual pornography. I don't really spend a lot of time with the others (commercial radio and MacDonalds are particularly unpleasant).
I also don't get when he says
If you’re a vegetarian… Well, you’re shit out of luck.
and then two paragraphs later he inverts that by saying the other stuff is still out there. And, in my opinion, it's not just "still out there" - there's actually more of such content available.
" If you’re a vegetarian… Well, you’re shit out of luck. "
Ya, I'll just skip this rant of his and wait for the full length film of this article.
Its funny how the author is using a medium in which he describes as fading to convey his distaste in another medium which "everyone" is using. But, expects us to use the fading medium to understand his "vegetarian" ideas.
Let me keep in style with this article and TL;DR it for you: instant gratification is awesome, and it's easier than it's ever been.
I embrace this and look forward to a day when I can just go into dreamland in my mind while my body is controlled by a computer to do space mining that robots can't. Then I can spend more time doing exactly what I want.
currently a lot of the market players are focused on grasping a part of your attention. essentially there is a constant battle raging inside of you trying to figure out which of all those mental stimuli you should give in to. if you as an individual don't learn to refrain from such distilled indulgence (social media, fast food, pornography) you might as well get lost in the 21st century (and end up void of any free will)... and that's a dangerous outlook (remember Huxley's brave new world?)
Ok, so I have a point to make. I don't quite understand how, whenever porn is discussed, all the HN community gets very rational about it and we start discussing it as if it was a normal product. It is absolutely not. It is not what human beings are and it degrades women (And increasingly, trends in porn change only in one way: How they degrade women). It is also dull, and repetitive, despite their sad attempts to innovate; there is a finite number of sexual positions, and you can only go past that once you establish the fact that women will choose to degrade themselves and go with it, which the makers (men, always) happily decide its the case.
So yes, as a hacker, there things to learn from the porn industry (scaling, traffic analysis..),but its effect on society and its subjugation of half of said society far outweigh those few technological insights.
There's an increasing number of women watching porn - 1 in 3 porn viewers according to Nielsen - or making porn without receiving financial compensation (so, not because they need the money). Who are we to say that we know better than them what does or doesn't degrade them? That feels extremely patronizing.
You can always go to a porn website and search for words that convey degradation (rape, rough, bad words men call women,..). Nowadays they are quite explicit about it, not even bothering with visual metaphors.
I actually don't. I am not sure why you would assume I do. I am in a very healthy relationship. But I did research on it for a paper. I also discuss this matters with my girlfriend and several other people who have growing concerns over the escalating violence (or at least the showing of it) in the porn industry.
Being in a healthy relationship does not exclude the possibility of consuming pornography. That you seem to think it does is a bit odd, and makes me think you don't really understand how this stuff works.
What stuff?
And of course it does not exclude the possibility of consuming porn (The only situation that does is not having internet or TV). But I don't watch porn and I don't think I need to given my current life style and personal principles. As simple as that.
Stuff, as in, why people watch porn and what it means.
I'm not criticizing you in any way for not watching it. Doesn't matter to me. I just think it's really odd to drop "I'm in a very healthy relationship" into this conversation, as if that fact by itself means you don't consume porn.
I would like to hear the numbers behind your arguments. I would be very surprised if highly degrading porn is more popular compared to amateur or gonzo. Simply because it exists does not mean it represents a popular trend emerging in pornography.
You seem to believe that women deciding to be dominated sexually must be subjugated, and that her choice is a result of the oppressiveness of our society. Many women would find that view very offensive.
I actually agree with your first part, and as I said, its an increasing trend, not necessarily the most popular. But that still worries me.
But I disagree when you say women deciding to be dominated. I don't see how one can decide to be dominated. If we follow this argument that we can say that men and women in a China factory decided to work 16 hours a day, conveying the idea that there is nothing wrong with it.
Oh man, I wrote a giant post, but it was too big to post here. Essentially I disagree with the author, and I probably have said some interesting things in my rant. Here it is: http://pastebin.com/EV64mvm8
I agree with this article, however, it overlooks one huge aspect; porn has been popular long before America became fat and obsessed with the "I want it now" massive $1 cheeseburgers.
We were just talking about this in an IRC channel. I think the article is saying that we've cut everything down to the common denominator. I've also heard it called the 'fast food' generation. We want the quick hit, the down and dirty. We live in an incredibly fast paced society. But in that context, how can you not chop everything down to the kibbles and bits, in order to get people even interested? (or in other terms: tl;dr)
The way I look at it, anyone who indulges in porn isn't going to be a competitive threat to me or take my job. Why? Because they're preoccupied, lack self control and settle for fantasy over reality.
That's a different beast. Not that there isn't TV movies and books that are a waste of time, but in general people who read and watch the right movies become quite a bit wiser. Porn is always the same. Frankly, if you 've read De Sade your knowledge of the genre is complete. In contrast to good culture, porn is addictive like a drug: it doesn't get you anywhere.
Books require focus and self-control. Non-fiction are obviously not fantasy, but even much of fiction is soundly rooted in reality or science (fiction).
"This course of reading exacted no effort from the mind, and the more I indulged in it the more averse I became to the drudgery of business, and the more incapable of that accurate thinking and careful analysis required in the practice of the law."
"My fondness for romance, now become my ruling passion, not only impaired my powers of reasoning and investigation, but destroyed the balance of my mind by giving an undue preponderance to the imagination. The unnatural activity of that faculty, by presenting false and exaggerated views of persons and events, was frequently a serious disadvantage to me in my profession. Often when I was wrought into a fever of excitement by an ideal state of facts, the reality has so differed from my preconceived hypothesis, as to produce a sudden syncope of all my faculties."
"The excitement of novel reading is akin to intoxication. When it subsides, it leaves the mind collapsed and imbecile, without the capacity or the inclination for active exertion."
Wow, awesome find. People have been worried about this problem forever it seems, not just in our modern world. But look how far we've fallen. If he thought novels were bad, I can't imagine what he'd think of our amusements and distractions today.
He wrote that in 1839, just 12 years before Moby Dick was published. Wonder what he thought of that fiction book, generally considered to be one of, if not the, best English language novels written.
I dispute this statement. For one, more people alive now can read than could read back then.
Also, we no longer engage in the sport of bear-baiting.
> Wonder what he thought of that fiction book [Moby Dick], generally considered to be one of, if not the, best English language novels written.
He likely thought it was crap, because the British reviewers thought it was crap, because they got a mutilated copy to review. It wasn't until Melville was dead that the book actually got a fair shake.
What I meant is that I'm pretty sure that reading even a salacious fiction book today is better for your mind than most movies. Active vs passive engagement, etc.
Second, nothing in consuming porn inherently means the person "lacks self-control" (there's certainly porn addicts, but they're not the majority) or "settles for fantasy" - in fact, many couples watch porn together and use it to improve their own sex life.
Thirdly, porn is a highly competitive industry with a lot of talent in producing, managing and distributing content, both online and offline. They run very big websites and serve huge amounts of video traffic per minute. Xvideos alone has twice the page views of Reddit.
And lot of stuff we use routinely today, like video streaming, on-demand content distribution, secure pay-gates and various subscription models were if not created at least stress tested and used by porn ten years ago, maybe even before that. Who knows whether there would be youtube if there were porn in the 90s.
That's kind of BS. Porn is popular and addictive, and the internet is a huge megaphone, that doesn't make it respectable, the same way that pooping is not a respectable genre, despite the huge popularity of the act.
"Science fiction should get out of the classroom and back in the gutter where it belongs!" -Dena Benatan Brown.
Sci-fi is decently respected now, but some authors have gladly embraced Dena Brown's advice. When writing science fiction, you shouldn't care about respectability. That's not the point.
So yeah. Same goes with porn. Porn doesn't care if it's respectable. That is not porn's goal.
I 'm not against porn or anything, but i do think porn and sex is overrated in culture (perhaps out of spite for the christian oppression of the past?). Porn is popular, but it's not like it earned it, we are wired to be addicted to it (there's quite a lot of research on the addictiveness of porn). The fact that it's popular and drives a lot of internet traffic does not mean a negative view of porn is wrong. Alcohol and gambling are popular and drive a lot of resources does it mean they are not negative?
You're arguing against a strawman. I didn't say a negative view of porn is wrong. I said SpaceDragon was wrong because he views "anyone who indulges in porn" as uncompetitive, lacking self-control and settles for fantasy. And that's factually wrong.
It sounds like you’re judging the extreme negatives of pornography while ignoring its positive aspects. I can hardly blame you—the negatives are very visible—but I think such a subtle topic requires a more measured approach.
Most pornography is not degrading to anybody—it’s merely people seeking to make money or have a good time—and a considerable portion of it doesn’t even involve women. To say nothing of the female viewers of porn.
Most pornography does not trivialise intimacy, and there are vast amounts of erotic fiction and pornography with legitimate, deep characters with whom the audience is meant to be emotionally involved. In addition, not all intimacy in real life is deep: people often have “meaningless” sex even within the context of a relationship. If you’ll pardon the wording, it’s okay if a happy couple feels less like “making love” and more like “fucking”. And this is both natural and healthy.
As for toxicity to children and families, I’m baffled as to how knowledge of sexuality could be at all detrimental to the welfare of a child or family structure. Most children find sexual topics boring or revolting anyway, and I strongly doubt that pornography alone is sufficient to tear a family apart. Of course, pornography of children is another matter entirely.
But junk food for the mind? Absolutely! Porn is not necessary—I used to watch porn mainly when I was bored and lonely, and by avoiding things that bore me and keeping myself in the company of others, there is much less of a reason for me to seek it out.
Still, I don’t see the need to spurn it outright—people watch porn every day and it doesn’t hurt anybody.
Well, I don't think there's any point in discussing this. We're obviously not going to change our opinions about it.
But I'd like to say that personally, I prefer to let women decide for themselves what degrades them, instead of taking the position that I know best, and considering that many women nowadays watch porn (1 in 3 porn viewers, according to Nielsen), I'm not sure if they feel that way.
Probably because the cultural norm is to assume that men are entitled to get laid but women are not. Such assumptions lead to uneven social outcomes which make sex far more socially problematic for women than men, for example prostitutes are typically viewed in more negative terms than johns are. It is not unusual for someone to express the idea that it is okay for a man to pay for sex but it is evil incarnate for a woman to sell it.
While I don't happen to agree with such views I think there are some good reasons why they exist and men who hold such views often do so out of a sense of protectiveness for women generally. But if women are to achieve equality, such things need to change. Unfortunately, idealistically protesting the supposed degradation of women basically agrees with the default cultural assumption that women are mere sex objects who get used by men and thus tends to reinforce it rather than undermine it. As a woman, I have found that whining and complaining that men should not treat women as sex objects is a really weak position to take because it respects the assumption that all the power to change things is held by men, not women. A far stronger position is to turn the tables on men and talk about them like they are sex objects for my pleasure. Edit: I mean as a form of rebuttal/to make a point. In practice -- i.e. in a relationship -- I don't think it really works for either party to be objectified.
Somewhat in Space Dragon's defense, I think there may be some correlation between a man liking porn and a man treating women as mere sex objects. I cannot say though which is cause and which is effect -- i.e. whether men who view women as mere sex objects are more attracted to porn or whether watching porn promotes such attitudes. I only know that men who treated me decently tended to have little interest in porn. I don't much care for it myself, though that isn't out of judgmentalism. It simply doesn't float my boat.
Maybe it's the case that those who most objectify others will be satisfied with using porn pretty much exclusively if that's an option, but I doubt it works like that. I think porn simply fulfills the 'punching bag' need, and allows other emotions to come to the fore in the real world.
> I have found that whining and complaining that men should not treat women as sex objects is a really weak position to take because it respects the assumption that all the power to change things is held by men
I fully agree.
I also think that one part of achieving equality is to realize that women objectify men, and that it's in their power to stop such behavior. Especially since any man who objects to being objectified by a woman is placed in a very precarious position in our current society, much like how people pretty much assume it's impossible for women to rape or abuse men.
Have an upvote, though I don't see any reason to believe that the negative correlation between porn and sex crimes in any way proves that my personal opinion, based in part on first hand experience interacting with heterosexual men, is wrong. I think all it means is that having some outlet is better than having no outlet, not that viewing porn makes would-be rapists have more humane and enlightened attitudes towards women. Similar to the fact that countries with inadequate legal exports are your biggest exporters of illicit drugs: They need hard currency and that need doesn't go away just because they lack better options. If given better (more socially acceptable) options, people will usually take the easier path that leads to fewer problems. It is a form of self interest, not necessarily an expression of deeply respecting other people.
I think the point of the article is that all media is entertainment, and journalism has lost it's informant pretense. A legit point, I don't care for porn bashing though.